[as112-ops] Request to add home.arpa to AS112 repertoire

[Warren Kumari]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:
> Hi Warren,
>
> (Top-posting for great justice)
>
> Kim actually drew my attention to this document some time ago. I'm interested to see it landing here in this form.
>
> The document as-written includes directions to the IANA that are challenging to implement well, since a new delegation to AS112 nameservers is going to be lame at least from the perspective of some clients, due to the loose coordination of AS112 operators (the one not active on this list).
>
> We have an approach ready (RFC 7534 deprecated 6304, and the nameservers are answering) and documented (RFC 7535) that should avoid lame delegations. Since there is no existing home.arpa traffic to break, this would be an ideal time to field test the mechanism in the wild and confirm what is expected, which is that the result is an effective AS112-style sink with no lame delegations.
>
> The IANA team have my sympathies with this, since they have been directed to do something that is (a) going to break and (b) ignores the (I think) fairly expicit direction that has emerged from dnsop on this very topic.
>
> It would be nice to think the IETF could revisit this text, I think. It wouldn't take much change to the text to switch from lame delegations to DNAME redirection. I volunteer to generate sentences, if that helps.
>
> Perhaps this is a storm in a teacup that I'm amplifying because of my history with the AS112 documents, but I personally think it would be nice if an energetic AD could consider whether there's still time to repoint this work. (I mention this despite your meh, Warren :-)

Actually, this had been discussed, but the authors were asked to leave
this up to the IANA / IAB -- from my ballot:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/current/msg07456.html

-------------------
"> 6: Section 7. Delegation of ’home.arpa.’

> This delegation MUST NOT include a DS record, and MUST point to one or more
> black hole servers, for example ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole-
> 2.iana.org.’. I fully agree with the DS bit, but the "blackhole" bit feels VERY
> hand-wavey. Currently a lookup for home.arpa to these returns REFUSED instead
> of NXDOMAIN: $ dig +nostat +nocmd home.arpa @blackhole-2.iana.org ;; Got
> answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 7826 ;; flags: qr
> rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; WARNING: recursion
> requested but not available
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;home.arpa.                     IN      A
>
> The document just delegates this to ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole-
> 2.iana.org.’ - they're are not authoritative for home.arpa (and nothing in the
> doc makes them so), and so this does not return NXDOMAIN and instead amplifies
> the query load. Delegating them to RFC7535 servers *may* help, but I'm not sure.

We were specifically asked to trust that IAB/IANA would deal with
this, and to not put explicit operator instructions in the document.
I agree that those two servers need configuration changes; this is up
to the IAB and IANA (as their operator) to make happen.
"
----------------

I do not know all of the history / backstory on this decision.

W


>
>
> Joe
>
>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 20:34, Warren Kumari <warren at kumari.net> wrote:
>>
>> The full IANA considerations for this document says:
>> "8. IANA Considerations
>>
>>   IANA is requested to record the domain name 'home.arpa.' in the
>>   Special-Use Domain Names registry [SUDN].  IANA is requested, with
>>   the approval of IAB, to implement the delegation requested in
>>   Section 7.
>>
>>   IANA is further requested to create a new subregistry within the
>>   "Locally-Served DNS Zones" registry [LSDZ], titled "Transport-
>>   Independent Locally-Served DNS Zones", with the same format as the
>>   other subregistries.  IANA is requested to add an entry in this new
>>   registry for 'home.arpa.' with the description "Homenet Special-Use
>>   Domain", listing this document as the reference.  The registration
>>   procedure for this subregistry should be the same as for the others,
>>   currently "IETF Review" ([RFC8126] Section 4.8)."
>>
>> These references go to:
>> SUDN -> "Special-Use Domain Names Registry", July 2012,
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml>
>> LSDZ -> "Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry", July 2011,
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xhtml>
>>
>>
>> I'd personally thought that this should have been "new style" AS112
>> servers, but meh.
>>
>> W



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf